On 3/28/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Indeed, but just because _some_ blogs are full of
mean that _all_ blogs should be ignored completely (which is, AIUI,
the current BLP policy).
So let's formulate a more sensible policy:
1) Blog posts can be used to substantiate the opinion of their authors
at the time of posting.
2) Respected, widely used blogs can be used in the same manner as
other types of publications where defamation of living people is not
concerned. Of course, proof of "respect" and "wide use" must be
But what do you really want to do when a respected, widely used blog
claims that some living person bribed a member of parliament, and
provides some kind of "proof"? I don't see how we could publish that.
Can anyone name a blog they would feel comfortable citing directly for
something really contentious and defamatory? If the claims are that
important, surely they will be picked up, verified and repeated by
newspapers or other media?